NUP to appeal High Court ruling dismissing case of 18 missing party members

Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | The National Unity Platform-NUP has announced plans to appeal a High Court ruling that dismissed its petition seeking accountability from the Ugandan government for the disappearance of 18 party supporters.

NUP President Robert Kyagulanyi Sentamu, also known as Bobi Wine, disclosed this during an emergency press conference held at the party headquarters in Makerere Kavule on Wednesday.

Earlier this year, NUP approached the High Court to compel authorities to explain the whereabouts of its missing members, whom it alleges were abducted by security operatives in recent years. The missing individuals include John Bosco Kibalama, John Damulira, Shafik Wangolo, Martin Lukwago, Michael Semudu, Musisi Mbowa, Vincent Nalumoso, Dennis Zimbula, Muhammad Kanatta, George Katumba, Moses Mbabazi, Yuda Ssempijja, Alphat Mugumya, Peter Kitya, Mustapha Muwemba, Hassan Mubiru, Isma Ssesaazi, and Godfrey Kisembo.

In their application, they sought a declaration that the government has a duty to account for the whereabouts of the missing NUP supporters, and a ruling that the incommunicado detention of the supporters by government agents is unlawful, illegal, and a violation of their fundamental human rights as enshrined in the 1995 Constitution of Uganda. The case also called for a declaration that the government’s conduct constitutes a severe dereliction of its human rights obligations to respect, uphold, protect, and promote the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the applicants, as outlined under Articles 20(2) and 21 of the 1995 Constitution. The applicants further sought compensation for the breach of their constitutional rights and an order for general and punitive damages.

However, on Tuesday, Justice Esta Nambayo dismissed the case and ordered each party to bear its costs, stating that there was no basis for making the declarations sought. The ruling highlighted that none of the supposed witnesses who allegedly saw the arrests provided affidavits to support the application.

The evidence given came from relatives who did not witness the arrests directly but only recounted what they had been told, failing to present first-hand witnesses in court.

Speaking at Makerere Kavule, Kyagulanyi condemned the ruling, calling it another example of the government using the judiciary to deny justice to ordinary citizens and further oppress them to legitimize impunity. He pointed out that former Internal Affairs Minister Abubakar Jeje Odong had previously produced a list including some of the individuals named in the case. However, Kyagulanyi questioned why Justice Nambayo did not consider any of this evidence in her decision to dismiss the petition.

Kyagulanyi vowed that NUP would not relent and would pursue justice at all levels, beginning with an appeal against the High Court’s decision. He also urged the relatives of the 18 missing individuals not to lose hope, asserting that the government’s actions are intended to demoralize and ultimately discourage them from seeking justice.

NUP lawyer George Musisi, who represents the families of the missing individuals, said they had explained to the court that in many cases, evidence of arrest is lacking because individuals were taken by plain-clothed gunmen, often in the dead of night. Despite this, the court did not accept their argument.

Musisi added that they had provided evidence showing that some of the missing people were detained alongside others who have since been released, yet the court dismissed this reasoning. He questioned who else, if not the court, would ensure accountability for citizens’ rights.

NUP Secretary-General David Lewis Rubongoya noted that this was not the first time the party had encountered difficulties seeking justice from Justice Nambayo. He referred to a previous case involving NUP members Eddie Mutwe and Nubian Li, who were detained in Kitalya, where Justice Nambayo demanded evidence of torture before their detention—a standard Rubongoya described as impractical.

He argued that such technicalities are deliberately used to delay or deny them justice.

*****

URN